BANJA LUKA, 25.12.2017 – The media during pre-election campaigns should not change their only true role, which is responsible reporting in the public interest. If we accept the definition of journalism that says that the first and basic purpose of journalism is to help an individual to make decisions easier[1], then representation of responsible journalism during the pre-election campaign would be overwhelming. We can show parallels in relation to medicine: the doctor’s job is to provide responsible treatment to every patient, no matter who he is and what period of the year he is doing. However, since the responsibility of journalism in Bosnia and Herzegovina is not at a high level[2], it is necessary to analyze the position of journalism and political subjects in extraordinary circumstances, such as the pre-election campaign.

In their ideal form, pre-election campaigns should have the task of presenting electoral candidates to voters, where political actors do not have the obligation of a balanced and independent approach. Moreover, political actors act as products in the political market, they use a marketing approach in order to provide the greatest possible support and outcome. Such an approach is, I note, justified from the point of view of a political actor, with the exclusion of behavior that is characterized by hate speech and inappropriate advertising techniques. On the other hand, the media have a completely opposite role in their specific roles, which is to provide the public with pluralism of information about political candidates, on the basis of which the audience needs to make, change or strengthen their electoral decision.

Presentation of candidates in BiH

The media outlets in BiH can`t fulfill the previously described task, because political parties recognized the effects of the media and somehow took over the editorial policies of the media. Regardless of the Election Law, which in Chapter 16 contains certain articles that sanction the unethical behavior of actors and media (we will cover that topic later), most media do not respect pluralism within their program or content. I will speak about most media outlets, and under this definition, I mean large-scale media, such as three public services (BHRT, FTV and RTRS), the largest commercial broadcasters and the leading print media and portals of both entities. I am not going to deal with new media whose reach and scope is limited, as well as foreign-owned media that still have a completely different editorial policy (Al Jazeera and N1). So, I am talking about pluralism within the media, because I can`t say that there is no media pluralism in BiH. If we return historically in 1644 and Areopagitic from John Milton, we will see that he considered that the task for the media was to provide pluralism of information, and that the audience would sooner or later come to the truth. Today it is difficult to talk about such pluralism, because John Milton assumed that there will never be more than a few media within society. In addition, today’s younger audience mainly collects information from social networks[3], and is often influenced by the so-called Balkanization of the media.[4]

How well do media fulfill their function of fair and independent reporting during pre-election campaigns in BiH? According to the Final Report on the Monitoring of Media Reporting in the Pre-election Campaign in 2016, the results show the difference between commercial and public television stations: commercial media strives for neutral reporting, while public services are biased. The exception is BHRT, which had 98% neutral reporting on candidates, while the most biased was RTRS – in 25% of cases. Another problem identified in this report is the abuse of political functions, so it is often noticed that current officials are in a privileged position when it comes to publicity. Milorad Dodik and Bakir Izetbegovic are the political figures most widely reported about, which is a certain paradox, given that they are presented in local elections in which they were not candidates. This can be explained by two processes: the cult of personality and instrumentalization of the media. In a divided society like BiH, ethno-national leaders have characteristics of a cult of personality, because they are considered to be the main fighters for the declared goals of the constituent people (greater autonomy of the entities, greater centralization of the state, the introduction of a new entity). In this process, the media play a key role, because excessive publicity reduces the space that other political actors can use.

Instrumentalization of media in pre-election campaigns

Instrumentalization of the media is reflected in the use of the following techniques during election campaigns:[5]

• financial assistance in the form of budget allocations, donations and advertising services;
• abuse of political power in the sense of appointing editors and journalists;
• permanent spin in the form of false analysts, logical errors and the exploitation of national themes.

Observed from the perspective of political actors holding political power, it is clear that they have a privileged relationship with the most influential media. They can at any time allocate funds from the budget, either directly (as a help or as a means of financing) or indirectly (lease of advertising space). In addition, money is a decisive factor in the presence of certain political candidates. For example, the largest parties can always finance participation in all tv shows, while independent candidates can`t. In this way, the legal role of public services is forgotten, which should be a corrector in such circumstances. Nevertheless, an example of RTRS shows that they fulfill obligations when it comes to most programs, but when we talk about central news programs and special magazines, then there are noticeable bias.

Another technique is also most visible at entity public services. In order to provide support to the currently ruling party, the opportunity is used to bring key personnel to the key positions (cabinet heads, advisers, etc.). How and in what way they do their job is a completely different issue, but the fact is that there are cases of political placement and clientelism.

Permanent spin is something that is attributed to political parties, and we noted that they do not have the duty of impartial performance. The problem is when the media uncritically convey everything that the parties say, so a situation where certain opinions have more publicity is obtained. If we analyze the appearance of candidates in the Final Report, we see that political candidates are often on the same number of positive and negative representations. However, the problem is that most positive reporting is related only to one or two media, and the same is true for the negative one. This means that a part of the audience that does not follow both media can`t have a complete and wider picture. A similar result is made by Aleksandar Bogdanić and Jelena Ćurguz, stating that RTRS and BN television report as if they were reporting about two different worlds.[6]

BiH Election Law and position of the Media

One of the products of the Final Report and Cooperation of the Association of BH Journalists and Boram Agency with the Coalition Pod Lupom are the recently proposed amendments to the Election Law, i.e. in Article 16 relating to the media. These changes may not change the overall media picture of political representation in the permanent campaign process in the short term, but in the long run it can correct reporting in the official election campaigns.

One of the most important changes is the emphasis on fair and independent representation of all candidates, with an explicit ban on the promotion of the interests of only one political party. This proposed amendment makes the Election Law clearer, since the media would no longer have an alibi in the claim that they do not favor one actor because they want it, but simply expose themselves most.

The most important change is the prohibition of any kind of hate speech and discrimination in the media, with the remark that the media may refuse a paid advertisement containing such elements. In previous election campaigns, the media was hiding behind the fact that they were not hate speech creators, but only their disseminators. This was not enough, because responsible media do not play the role of microphone holders, because they can and should reject any promotion of vulgar insults, discrimination and hate speech.

Also, these amendments include some other chapters which have so far been part of the exclusive code of ethics, but there is clearly a need for legal support in order to keep the media and actors more adhered to. For example, the right to reply should be one of the basic postulates of journalism in general, and here we have a situation where this must be regulated by law. It is the same with the tendency to prevent abuse of publicity, since the Final Report has shown that there are major problems with abuse of position or discriminatory attitude towards women candidates.

Responsible journalism as the only remedy

Responsible journalism may sound like an oxymoron, but in the period of irresponsible journalism it is necessary to insist to prove to public that there is a better way of functioning of the media outlets. While Article 16 of the Election Law is more and more important and more comprehensive, that means that journalism in BiH lacks an elements of public interest. How to, in such circumstances, create better conditions for representing political candidates, while objectives and methods are realistically achievable?

First, it is necessary to democratize the election process in BiH itself. In a situation where we have a lot of complaints about the regularity of the election, a large number of abstainers, submissive or parochial political culture – it’s hard to talk about democratic media. They just become part of the problem, not their solution.

Secondly, in the academic environment that educate young journalists, it is necessary to insist on the adoption of the principle of independence, which can replace impartiality, fairness and balance. If we accept the fact that we live in a highly divided and politicized society, journalists/editors can only be asked to be independent (they do not carry functions in parties, they are not party members, they are not affiliated with politicians, etc.), and as a result we will have fair and balanced reporting. So, it is easier for journalists to learn to be independent than to be fair or honest. If that does not exist, then we have self-censorship situations in which journalists contribute to the problem.

Thirdly, the media can be a platform or arena for different opinions in the pre-election campaign, without looking for money or any other service. For example, in dialog shows, the same conditions can be offered for everyone, where media does not automatically stop the effort to find out this opinion. Prime time is a reason to be a main term on television and radio, so it is not unreasonable to require public services and other commercial media to be arena for different opinion.

Fourth, journalists can offer responsible journalism on the new media platforms: blogs, portals, social networks. We already have examples of media that are responsibly doing their job, which are independent of politics and economics, and whose work significantly influences representation of candidates to be more balanced.

My thesis at the beginning of the text was that political actors should not be required to be objective in their approach, to represent the interests of all citizens and to publicly speak in an objective way. This is not their goal and they have the right to compete in the political market ethically. However, we saw that the same rules do not apply to the media, but just the opposite: if the political parties will not or can`t be impartial, then the media must, because one interest is not – the public interest.

[1] Bill Kovach and Tom Rosenstiel (2006). Elementi novinarstva. CID: Podgorica.

[2] Rea Adilagić (2016). Indikatori nivoa medijskih sloboda i sigurnosti novinara. BH Journalist Association: Sarajevo.

[3] https://www.slobodnaevropa.org/a/glasom-mladih-drustvene-mreze/28604222.html, visited 23.11.2017.

[4] Under balkanization of the media we understand a process in which the audience follows only those media / persons on social networks with whose opinion they agree, while avoiding confrontation with the media that do not disagree with their attitudes.

[5] I note that in BiH we can`t speak about extraordinary circumstances in pre-election campaigns, because through the appearance of political parties, we can speak about undergoing permanent campaigns.

[6] Aleksandar Bogdanić and Jelena Ćurguz. (2015). Novinarnost elektronskih medija u vrijeme izborne kampanje: Uporedna analiza RTRS-a i BN televizije; in Medijska slika: Istraživanja odgovornog novinarstva. Faculty of Political Sciences Banja Luka.

This article has been produced as a part of the project Western Balkan’s Regional Platform for advocating media freedom and journalists’ safety with the financial assistance of the European Union. The contents of this article are the sole responsibility of the BH Journalists Association and its authors, and can in no circumstances be regarded as reflecting the position of the European Union.

BELGRADE, 22.12.2017. – The trend of ethical plummeting in media continues in 2017, as shown by the Press Council report. It that states that from 1 January to 31 August Press Council received 65 complaints against media contents. It is true that the number of complaints is by 23 less than in the same period in 2016, but the Press Council also points the fact that the monitoring of the code of journalism compliance concluded that the number of infringements is still growing.

Out of the total number of complaints filed, the Press Council Complaints Commission deliberated 43. As many as 16 complaints were rejected for formal shortcomings, four were resolved through mediation prior to deliberation at a Commission session, while two complaints were still in procedures. As many as 31 complaints were filed by civil society organisations – the first time since the beginning of work of the Press Council that the number of complaints filed by organizations surpasses the number of complaints filed by citizens, who in the first 8 months complained to this independent self-regulatory body for 26 times. As many as four complaints were filed by media outlets against other media outlets, while members of the Complaints Commission, institutions, and companies filed two complaints each.

The Complaints Commission decided that the Code had not been violated on only three occasions, while in six cases it did not manage to harmonize the final decision due to lack of necessary 8 votes. Breaches of the Code were found in 35 cases, out of which, 15 decisions were passed about media outlets that recognize the Press Council authority, while 20 public reprimands were pronounced to media outlets which have not accepted self-regulation yet.

Out of the mentioned 15 decisions, media that violated the Code published only four, even though by accepting competence of the Council they also accepted the obligation to publish decisions passed by it. Media outlets which are not in the self-regulation system do not have the obligation to publish public reprimands.

The largest number of decisions that the publishing of media content violated the Code was passed against the Politika daily – five. However, Politika failed to publish them. In the same period, the Code was broken by the Alo and Blic three times, and once by the Kurir, Večernje novosti, Telegraf.rs, and Pančevac. The most public reprimands were addressed to Informer daily – 6, followed by the Srpski telegraf ‒ 4, the Tabloid ‒ two, while one was sent respectively to Kraljevo online, Žig info, Glas Zapadne Srbije, the Dnevni žurnal, ePodunavlje, Ekspres, Afera, PP Media, Gradski portal 018, and Peščanik.

Provisions violated most frequently are those from the chapter Veracity of reporting (16 times), Journalistic attention (15 infringements), while there were 13 violations of provisions related to prohibition of discrimination, which is, as assessed in the report, a result of a larger engagement on part of CSOs in filing of complaints. In nine cases it was established that the title did not match the content of the article; the right to privacy was violated six times, while the right to reply was violated four times.

There is an interesting example of Pero Simić, the advisor of the president of the Republic of Srpska, who filed a complaint against the Danas daily. Simić addressed the Press Council because Danas failed to publish his response to the column of a journalist from the paper. It started with Danas publishing an article about Simić, followed by Simić’s reaction. The journalist responded by publishing another article, continuing the discussion. However, Danas refused to publish Simić new reply, finding it offensive for the journalist, and requested of him to adapt the response so it can be published. Instead of Simić, the reply was sent by the president of Republika Srpska, and published by the paper; however, advisor Simić complained to the Complaints Commission because Danas hadn’t published his response. The Commission did not manage to harmonize the decision, as it could not resolve the dilemma whether the right to reply should be observed if the reply is offensive, i.e. if it should be published.

Particular attention of the profession and public was drawn to the case of “phantom commentators” in the Politika daily. This is about two allegedly author’s articles of non-existing individuals, with phantom titles, stating discriminatory attitudes to women. It turned out that the authors of the articles did not exist; one of the articles also included a photo of a German actor. In addition to actor, a complaint was filed by an organization dealing with protection of women’s rights. The Commission decided the Code was violated in both cases.

There is an interesting case of complaint against the Blic daily, which published a story about a German national who suffered a heart attack on an Air Serbia flight. The article praised the company and the doctor who assisted the passenger; however, the Blic also published the name of the passenger, and a photo which was downloaded from his Facebook account without approval. This was all done despite the request of the passenger not to be mentioned in papers. The Commission decided that the Blic violated his right to privacy.

One of the conclusions of the Press Council report is that media outlets are increasingly less likely to respond to complaints and also increasingly less likely to publish decisions of the Complaints Commission.

Media smear campaigns against journalists

Wars among journalists and persecution of individual journalists in certain media are certainly not new to Serbian public scene. On contrary – for decades, serious political conflicts have been accompanied with likewise serious harangues, targeting, and ad hoc accusations against this or that journalist who was not to someone’s liking.

Nowadays, however, the matter is so pervasive that it is difficult to even list all attacks, accusations, and campaigns, insane constructs which persons nominally defined as journalists addressed to their colleagues. Certainly, this surpasses the level of usual clashes within a profession: these conflicts are far more serious than conflicts in any other profession as they put targeted journalists in physical danger and expose them to risk of continual defamation and discrediting, which affects not only them personally, but their family members as well.

Assassins and conspirators

As of recently, journalists are most frequently attacked as traitors and mercenaries in the Informer, Srpski telegraf, and on TV Pink – the champions of pro-regime media engagement. This list comprises primarily editors and journalists of CINS, BIRN, and KRIK, but also journalists from N1, Vreme weekly, and other media which won funds at legal and transparent competitions of international organizations and institutions.

The favourite personality of tabloid media is certainly Vukašin Obradović, who was targeted as a conspirator, person of suspicious ethical qualities, or person “who is not opposed to assassination of Aleksandar Vučić” several times. Following Obradović’s hunger strike and announced closure of Vranjske weekly, tabloids competed in stories of millions and trillions dinars he had “received from the state”, all in an attempt to explain that he had no reason at all to go on a hunger strike. This case, however, is the best illustration that attacks against journalists in tabloids are not driven by journalists, but by those who regularly feed them with half-information and various constructs. The story about the paid millions (from which key data were conveniently omitted) was first launched by Prime Minister Ana Brnabić, her theses being additionally developed by agile tabloid reporters. This case also shows how serious media attacks are and how much they affect not only the person they directly relate to, but his or her nearest and dearest as well. At a hearing within Obradović’s claim against the Informer on 30 November this year, he testified that, as the tabloid had published that he worked “to the benefit of Albanians”, a number of people in his environment were “under the delusion” that he really worked in the interest of Albanians, that is, “against Serbia”.

Although worrying, such statements do not seem to be of much concern to Serbian judiciary. Unlike lawsuits for violation of honour and reputation, lawsuits based on situations of physical or any other danger in which the targeted individual is put are rejected as a rule, or this dimension is not taken into consideration at all. When Obradović and a group of activists, actors, and journalists labelled as persons involved into conspiracy to murder Aleksandar Vučić filed criminal charges against the editor of the Informer and several other media outlets, the prosecution dismissed the charges with the justification that “there was no reasonable suspicion that the charged persons had perpetrated the said criminal offences”. Even though the alleged “conspirators” testified in person and explained what problems they encountered for having been put a media target on the forehead, this was simply not enough for the prosecution. “Printing our photos and names under the headline ʼKILLING OF VUČIĆ BEGINS!ʽ and ‘CONSPIRACY AGAINST AUTHORITIES IN SERBIAʽ  the Informer actually printed our wanted warrants. Also, the thesis on conspiracy was widely discussed, while the wanted warrants were multiplied within the broad network of pro-regime media, including TV Pink, website of the unknown nationalist organization Zavetnici, the Pravda daily, and others”, explained the claimants. “Positive that freedom of expression and freedom of media end where someone’s persecution begins, as public figures, journalists, and activists, we took the obligation of pointing to the responsibility of media and journalists for marking us targets, or anyone else who is covered on front pages of so-called tabloid papers. The decision on dismissal of our criminal charges once again shows that those who ‘think differently’ and react publicly in Serbia cannot count on justice, fairness, and equality, and that anyone can accuse them of whatever without bearing any consequences “.

Cases which are more likely to have an outcome in court, and to the benefit of the claimant too, are those in which data from claimant’s private lives is used, abused, or forged, so as to disqualify their professional work. In these terms, there is a telling example of Stevan Dojčinović, who was accused of various things by pro-regime media (without any grounds or sense, certainly), while in March last year the Informer placed a particular emphasis on his alleged hobbies; thus, a whole article is dedicated to the thesis that “Dojčinović is at best a suspicious person who should not be taken for granted” having in mind his “sadomasochistic” inclinations. Blurred photos were published allegedly showing the journalist hanging from the ceiling, on some sports apparatus, or the procedure of perforation of his skin “without anaesthesia” with hooks so as to hank him up on a jenny; it was mockingly stated that Dojčinović himself explained this as an extreme sport.

In the context of other accusations of pro-regime media, the KRIK editor is faced with (that he is an associate of narco bosses, drug addict, etc.), this detail does not seem so important at first, primarily because sports do include hooks and ceilings. However, when we consider what an average reader of the Informer – poisoned with hatred towards everything which is in any manner “different” – may think of someone who hangs from the ceiling and allegedly delights in pain.

If they have really nothing “saucy” to (ab)use against journalists whose work is not up to the taste of the current regime, state newsletters in the form of daily papers and TV stations are always glad to publish off-hand accusations on income or affiliation to a political party of persecuted colleagues. Thus, numerous RTS journalists were accused of being “yellow hypocrites”; there is also the case of a group of journalists who in the case of the presidential campaign supported the wife of candidate Vuk Jeremić ‒ former journalist Nataša Jeremić, who was at the time accused of being connected to drug cartels. The alleged “hypocrisy” of the colleagues was in a specific manner repeated following the attack of a member of Dveri against two journalists from TV Pink*: this is when colleagues Nataša Mijušković, Antonela Riha, and Jelena Obućina were criticized in the harshest words for having supported one colleague, not supporting two others (?!).

Elegantly and with style

A separate type of attacks against journalists comprises those professional ones which are considerably more elegant than the mentioned tabloid ones, which are addressed to different or other media audience, but which bear long-term danger for journalists they are targeted against. In these terms, there is the memorable several month long chase of the Politika against the Press Council’s Complaints Commission, that is, its individual members – including a signatory of this text. When the Commission passed the decision that the Politika violated the Journalists’ Code of Ethics in the article on financial income of certain media outlets and CSOs, at least one article a week was dedicated to professional capacities of behaviour of individuals who participated in the passing of this decision. These articles were unlike those published in the Informer, far from that, but they did undermine the image of the Press Council and criticized individuals.

This also includes a recent analysis of Ljiljana Smajlović in Nedeljnik weekly, dedicated to the participation of the Group for Media Freedom at the regional media conference at Tirana, held on 9 and 10 November. This is where the participants in the conference were called “posers in black t-shirts”, which some readers must have found amusing; however, at the same time, they were placed in the context of flattering the EU (while they were doing exactly the opposite in Tirana) and foreign forces in general.

It is legitimate and, for freedom of expression, very desirable that there are different attitudes on certain phenomena and events in the public sphere, but one must not forget important facts, context, and the whole picture; at the same time, the colleagues were addressed serious accusations and qualifications.

The story about media chases against journalists contains a very interesting fact that there always some new and so-far unprecedented reasons for persecution. Thus, currently, in the absence of new theories on conspirators, assassins, drug addicts, traitors, mercenaries, it happened that N1 journalist Marija Antić was harassed for the questions she asked humanitarian worker and right-wing supporter Arnaud Gouillon. Gouillon himself, as then tabloids too, pointed a finger to the journalist because she insisted he explained his political ultra-rightist biography. The first media outlet which reacted was portal Telegraf.rs which published the headline “A SHAMEFUL INTERVIEW: JOURNALIST WANTS TO PRESENT THE GREATEST HUMANITARIAN WORKER AS A FASCIST” followed by the Informer with the statement that the French humanitarian worker is “TARGET OF AMERICAN MERCENARIES!! CIA TV N1 ATTACKS A FRIEND OF SERBS!“

This is all garnished with saucy comments of readers, which – together with the steaming campaign on social networks – presents a most serious threat to safety of journalist Antić.

It is clear that there is political will behind chases against journalists, or the wish of the ruling elite to label, exhaust, and intimidate colleagues who dare ask a question, write, report, and act differently than pro-regime media. It is also clear that in the time of considerable media tensions, each such attack results in concrete, physical danger for all the labelled and criticized journalists, or at least jeopardizes their further work and integrity.

Thanks to all this, media smearing may be readily placed among the gravest issues facing journalists and journalism in Serbia. They no longer present individual incidents, or something that happens occasionally. On contrary, smear campaigns belong to everyday life and permanent threat hanging over each and every journalist. At least, as long as there are journalists who are willing to defend their positions regardless of what kind of media notoriety this might earn them.

*Attacked on 18.09.2017 during protests in front of TV Pink by supporters of the right-wing parliamentary party Dveri

This article has been produced as a part of the project Western Balkan’s Regional Platform for advocating media freedom and journalists’ safety with the financial assistance of the European Union. The contents of this article are the sole responsibility of the Independent Journalists’ Association of Serbia and its authors, and can in no circumstances be regarded as reflecting the position of the European Union.

PODGORICA, 22.12.2017 – Journalists in Montenegro still cannot feel safe while performing their tasks, having in mind that from January to October this year, on average, each month one of their colleagues was attacked or was threatened. This is also shown by the official statistics of the Police Administration, according to which in the first ten months of 2017 eight journalists were attacked in Montenegro. The attacks mainly relate to life threats and other threats, and in the latest case a journalist’s vehicle was burned. Those who are attacked seek help from official institutions, and sometimes it doesn’t end well.

This is the case with Miroslav Drobnjak, a journalist from Pljevlja, whose car was burned on October 11 in front of his family house.

That the fire was deliberately set states the report of the Radovan Popović, a court expert in the field of fire protection, explosions and explosive devices.

“Detailed examination of the scene and the traces found showed that that fire, which occurred on October 11, 2017 around 19h on Ford vehicle (model Focus), owned by Miroslav Drobnjak – which at the time of the incident was in front of the owner’s house- was a consequence of an intentional act of NN person. It was done by sprinkling of a flammable substance (most likely a gasoline) in the lower part of the front windscreen – a wiper compartment and vehicle’s front sides. The substance was set on fire by appropriate means which led to the burning of a vehicle”, states the report.

On the results of the expert’s findings, Drobnjak was informed on November 17. In the meantime, no one was questioned nor any action was undertaken that would leave to resolving of this case. Therefore, on November 22, the Trade Union of Media of Montenegro (SMCG) addressed to the Council for Civilian Control of Police Operations with a request to examine the actions of the police in this case. Also, the Government’s Commission for monitoring actions of competent authorities in the investigation of cases of threats and violence against journalists, assassinations of journalists and attacks on media property requested from Basics State Prosecution Office in Pljevlja and the Police Directorate complete documentation related to the event to determine whether the institutions did everything in their jurisdiction timely in order to resolve the case.

On November 29, at the request of the Council Drobnjak was invited to Pljevlja police station. Drobnjak told us how the hearing went:

“Inspector from Pljevlja told me at first to come at 12 o’clock because they were expecting two inspectors from Podgorica. Later, he told me that inspectors would be late, and that I should come at 13 o’clock. At 13h, after half an hour of waiting, they told me to come at 15h. The hearing started after 15h. They told me first that I said the car was self-combusted, although that’s not true. Questions that followed were like an informal chat – where do you work, are you cold … where does your brother work, where does your sister work, is your father sick …When he asked me “is your father sick,” and he was operated in September, I realized that they knew all information about me. They ask “you are traveling across borders”. Prijepolje is about 30 km away and I often go there for shopping, and my brother is studying in Serbia.  Then questions about jealousy, whether I cheated on my girlfriend. That was funny to me, and they explained that there were many cases in which someone did something out of revenge. “Do you have a land, do you cultivate it …” We lead that kind of a conversation for an hour. All of questions were on private issues, which surprised me because if they came from the Council for Civilian Control of Police Operations I assumed they were supposed to examine whether the police had done their job so far and whether there was progress in the investigation in the case of car burning. It was not clear to me what my family had with the burning and work of the police.”

Soon the questions became “more serious”?

“Then one of the inspectors said “Here is a polygraph, do you know what is it? I said yes. One inspector was on one of my side, the second on the other, and I was in the middle when they told me “We would like to test you on the polygraph”.

Did they tell you that you can reject that testing?

“No. I knew, through my job, that I could reject polygraph testing, even though they did not tell me that. I also knew that it cannot be used as court evidence. They put the paper in front of me and said here, for your signature. I could have said –no-, but I was thinking – why should I do that, I have nothing to hide, I do not have a file, I have never been detained, I have no misdemeanors, I do not hang out with criminals … And If I refused, I would be suspicious right away. And I signed it.

Around 20 questions followed.  Only two or three of them were related to the burning incident. Those obvious one were – are you Miroslav and do you live and work in Pljevlja? And the rest – are you taking drugs, have you ever taken part in drug delivery, do you have any hidden drugs at home, hidden weapons … Do you sign articles with your name. Then, do you often travel across border, are you the perpetrator of any criminal offense … One set of questions and then they would say-let’s do it again. I thought that polygraph did not react because I had nothing to hide, and that’s why they asked to repeat it. After that they showed me trick with cards and told me to negate the right card. When they asked if the card was- queen- and when I said yes, he told then “you see how he reacts now”. I assumed that they counted that I would become more intense and then they moved to new set of questions. Again the same questions, for the fourth time. Then they started to persuade me that polygraph reacted to the question whether I take drugs. They asked me if I had anything to admit. I said no. And they start again.

Was that the end?

They finished then. They took gear off me and told me to wait in front of the office. I waited for about ten minutes when the Head of the Criminal Department told me to go home, that they received request from the Council for organization of the meeting with Chief of the Police and Chief of Criminal Department and that they would call me in the upcoming days to talk with me.

Did they call you?

Yes, after a couple of days. The Chief was kind, he told me they received a request. We talked about two hours. In total, that was the fifth statement given to the police and the Prosecutor’s Office. I asked about polygraph test. He told me that it was an internal matter of the police, that he had not yet received a report, and when he got it, he could not tell anything because it for their use. It is important to me to inform public how they treat journalists who are victims and who have been harmed. I say this hoping to be the last person who has been interrogated like an attacker and who is actually a victim.

Until now, besides Drobnjak, only a few people, whom he indicated that could be connected with burning of his car, have been invited to hearing. He does not have any information whether Pljevlja Basic State Prosecution Office qualified this as a criminal offense or what has been done so far to resolve this incident.

This article has been produced as a part of the project Western Balkan’s Regional Platform for advocating media freedom and journalists’ safety with the financial assistance of the European Union. The contents of this article are the sole responsibility of the Independent Journalists’ Association of Serbia and its authors, and can in no circumstances be regarded as reflecting the position of the European Union.

PARIZ, 20.12.2017.-Šezdeset pet novinara, među kojima pedeset profesionalaca, sedam “novinara – građana” (blogera) i osam “saradnika medija”, ubijeno je u svijetu u 2017., navodi se u godišnjem izvještaju Reportera bez granica (RSF).